HOME | DD
Nekromanda β Stamp: Religion VS NASA
Published: 2012-06-26 15:22:42 +0000 UTC; Views: 1929; Favourites: 71; Downloads: 18
Redirect to original
Description
"Religious tax exemptions cost the US $71.1 billion dollars each year. NASA's 2012 budget? 18.7 billion. You do the math."What Religious Tax Exemptions cost Us
NASA 2012 Budget
Just a thought.
BG:[link]
Temp: [link]
Click here for ALL of my Stamps Click here for Religious Stamps Click here for Political Stamps
Related content
Comments: 86
first of all the religious are not tax exempt, churches are,
second churches are non profit meaning what they make goes back into the community or the church they do not gain profit. science centers, art centers, charities, organizations, and some zoos do the same thing and are also non profit. If you want to tax one non profit you it is only fair to have all be tax but at the same time you are telling these places that don't make a profit to pay.
third buy taxing churches you are demanding the religious that they must pay money in order to practice their religion. from a charity prospective this is like telling those in need such as the hungry that they need to pay to get help from charity. it doesn't matterr what you believe it's not right to force this on people. there a so many things costing the US Billions and you are not complaining about those as well.
π: 0 β©: 1
www.scambusters.org/churchscamβ¦
π: 0 β©: 0
It is ironic. The vast majority of religions got their jump-starts by analysing via rudiment the heavens and by adoring the heavenly bodies (the Sun probably being the first sanctioned Deity) and now they close themselves in their admittedly beautiful edifices to ignore the sky.
I would much rather look for the Gods up in the skies where my ancestors figured they'd be.
π: 0 β©: 0
UGH! What NASA could do with that money! We could bring the Space Shuttles back, maybe even the Saturn V Rockets! Instead it goes to some religion!!! IT PISSES ME THE FUCK OFF!!
π: 0 β©: 1
They could've already sent a manned mission to Mars with that kind of money.Β Β
π: 0 β©: 1
Actually, you couldn't. You'd need at the very least 300-400 billion dollars to get to Mars. Let me explain why:
A quick little search turned up that the lunar landings (Apollo 11-17) cost about 26 billion dollars, which is 150-180 billion in today's money. Now bear in mind tech wasn't as good back then as it was now. For example, an iPhone today has more processing power than all the computers in mission control and the spacecraft... combined. Now, think about today's tech. It's more advanced, meaning it is more costly. However, we do not know if today's tech could reduce or increase the cost of going to the moon. But what we DO know is that you would need a hell of a lot more fuel and rocket pieces to get to Mars, which would make the cost go up into the hundreds of billions.
NASA would need a hell of a lot more money than 70-80 billion to get to Mars
π: 0 β©: 2
The money could help quite a bit though.
π: 0 β©: 1
True, but it couldn't pay for a manned trip to Mars and back. Remember, you need to get your man home as well!
π: 0 β©: 1
True, what I was saying is that some money would be better than nothing. They could get some cash faster.
π: 0 β©: 0
Bummer
But I'm sure there are other things NASA would be able to do with 70-80 billion, like they could maybe build a Moon base or a colony in Venus's atmosphere (since it has very Earth-like conditions). Or do you think those would cost more than that?
π: 0 β©: 1
With stuff like that, it's not getting money thats the problem, it is getting the go ahead for those sort of things. They have not been tested before, so if they turn out to be accidents or the like, governments will hesitate to spend money on it
π: 0 β©: 1
Well I think it's that and the fact that the US government just doesn't give shit about space (at least not as much as did during the 60's).Β
π: 0 β©: 0
So, churches cost more than firing people into space on bringing them back in one piece, despite the vehicles being towers of exploding fossil fuels? Seems legit.
Maybe if Nasa got to spend that money, we'd already have a replacement for the shuttles.
π: 0 β©: 1
Do your research - the space vehicles that are piloted by humans areΒ notΒ powered by fossil fuels. Although they are using a type of combustion engine, the fuels used are Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Oxygen as they provide enough energy to generate the thrust required for escape velocity.
π: 0 β©: 1
I know. I was making a reference to something incredibly obscure because it sounds a bit silly.
π: 0 β©: 1
My mistake. It's rather difficult to convey sarcasm in text.
π: 0 β©: 1
problem with the argument the 71 Billion is in potential income aka TAX, and the 18 Billion is in money given away.Β
plus religious institutions do a lot of good and spend quite a lot of that money helping the poor and donating to charities and so on and so fourth.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
Instead of wondering how much tax exemption costs us, how about we wonder why the 16th amendment was passed?Β Or how about military spending?Β Welfare system? Our government facilitating mediocrity in the healthcare system?
π: 0 β©: 0
We already have the church in our government for free.
π: 0 β©: 0
Can you imagine all the incredible stuff N.A.S.A. could so with a budget like that!? And what exactly is the 'religious tax' going to?
π: 0 β©: 0
In that case, I'll buy a house and pretend it's a "place of worship for god". That'll save me money. : D
π: 0 β©: 0
I think finding out about our universe is much more important that whatever those religious taxes are going to.
π: 0 β©: 1
^This! Agreed.
π: 0 β©: 0
Relgious tax exemptions?
I thought religion and state were SEPARATED its as if they get special treatment,
π: 0 β©: 1
That's what I think too. Doesn't giving them some sort of free pass sort of look like they're getting special treatment? I mean, it's not like one of the major political parties isn't already pushing Christian values anyway. :/
π: 0 β©: 0
It's called the constitution. 1st amendment and all that; ever heard of it? We spend an equal amount of money giving welfare to illegals than we do "losing" it to tax exemptions for churches. I honestly think it's just plain stupid when people (not saying you, but people in general) think it's a good idea to lift tax exemptions on churches. If it was possible, I'd say give churches even more tax exemptions, but that's not quite how it works. You get the idea.
Besides, NASA should have been privatized a long time ago. Space travel is for the American private sector. It's time the government took its bow for the final time.
π: 0 β©: 1
Thank you for injecting sanity onto a page that had none.
π: 0 β©: 2
Besides, I'd say that what churches in general contribute to their communities MORE than makes up for whatever is "lost" to tax exemptions for churches.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
That's my job, amigo!Β
This idea about making churches pay taxes is not new- it was brought up about three decades ago in the '80's, and they were just as wrong then as they are now.Β There's an order of operations with the nation's finances.Β Cut the military, they say.Β Make churches that already can barely afford to keep their doors open pay taxes, they say.Β Damn the first amendment, they say.Β But don't you dare criticize government spending like the world police policies or the overbloated welfare system, and especially not billion dollar bailouts for corporations.Β
It's just insanity.Β I have no words for the rubbish of it all... except for what I've already said.
π: 0 β©: 0
Normally, I agree with all your stamps, but if these people pay taxes, they will be able to have a say in government. That's not exactly separating church and state. I don't know about you, but I don't think that the church should be able to have ANY direct say in politics like this will grant it.
I think if we want to cut our debt and save money, we should start by knocking out all the stupid stuff the federal government spends our tax dollars on. [link] YEEEEEEEEP. You read all of that right.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's a fair enough reason, however we have to look at it how it is in reality - as we stand, even without requiring them to pay tax, religion still holds a very powerful sway in the government, and has for a long time. Our national motto is no longer "E pluribus unum," but "In God We Trust." One of the two major political parties clearly aligns itself with the wishes and agendas of religion. I agree that there are plenty of things that can be cut from the budget, or added to help boost our economy in time. But here's how I take it - by not making them pay the same taxes as everyone else has to, it appears that the government is 'respecting an establishment of religion' by giving them a special tax-exempt status, which is clearly against the Constitution of the United States.
π: 0 β©: 1
Exactly. So we shouldn't give them any more justification to stick their noses in where they're not wanted. I agree with you that taxing the churches WOULD give us more money, but we really can't give them any more leverage than they already have.
π: 0 β©: 2
By that logic, shouldn't atheists also have no leverage in the government?
π: 0 β©: 1
Well, I think CHURCH and STATE should be kept separate. Atheists have no church, so the two are unrelated. In other words, I believe government should be kept secular and atheism is secular.
π: 0 β©: 0
Fair enough, it's a difficult situation, with lots of good points for both sides haha.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's true. Just like any economic policies, there are good sides and bad sides to both.
π: 0 β©: 0
lol so again let's tax the religious and then give us a vote or a larger say in the government. Not a good idea.
π: 0 β©: 1
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that it might be beneficial to tax them in the end. By not making them pay the same taxes that everyone else as to, it appears that the government is respecting an establishment of religion by placing them in a special little shelf all to themselves.
π: 0 β©: 1
That is a very good point. Its a damned if you do, damned if you don't.
IN which case, tax planned Parenthood too.
π: 0 β©: 1
I think that those are slightly different in that PP doesn't represent any religions, but if other health providers pay taxes then I say fair enough, they should too.
π: 0 β©: 1
I will grant you that.
π: 0 β©: 0
Another good point would be if we taxed the religious they'd have freer reign to say what goes on in government and even get more monies from the government than just the religious hospitals who take medicare patients.
Plus it would mean folks paying taxes to that would be given to the now taxed religions. while I am an orthodox, conservative Christian, I don't want that to happen.
π: 0 β©: 0
I say if they want it, they shouldn't be trying to force their way into our laws.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>